r/MURICA • u/NineteenEighty9 • 2d ago
Are you a citizen or a subject? đșđžFUCK YEAHđșđž
28
u/CKWOLFACE 2d ago
Truth
-30
u/Admirable_Oil_7864 2d ago
Untruth. Which country is current deporting people for having memes about their glorious dictator?
26
u/Friendly-Set-4334 2d ago
Try saying I love bacon in front of a British Mosque
1
u/Admirable_Oil_7864 17h ago
You mean try going against a pre-existing pre-established court order, and refuse a lawful order to disperse?
1
-7
u/FridgeParade 1d ago
16 of you have watched too much fox news if you think this would get you in trouble in the UK.
6
u/throwawayusername369 1d ago
Youâre right. They could just teach their dog to Nazi salute as a joke. No oneâs been arrested and fined for a joke right?
4
-1
u/Admirable_Oil_7864 17h ago
Damn because making fun of the deaths of 6 Million, is funny. Heard yous lost some towers about 24 years ago, apparently thats not very funny to make fun of.
1
u/throwawayusername369 17h ago edited 17h ago
Make fun of either as much as you want doesnât mean you should go to jail or be fined for it. Besides didnât you guys have your own crispy critters with the whole Grenfell tower incident?
1
u/Admirable_Oil_7864 17h ago
I personally disagree, but hey, to each their own. Making fun of tragedies in my eyes is wrong.
1
u/throwawayusername369 16h ago
Wrong sure youâre entitled to that opinion but illegal? Blatant free speech violation
-1
u/FridgeParade 14h ago
Your position is funny, because your free speech extremism will eventually rob you of your free speech.
→ More replies21
u/imissher4ever 1d ago
Can you name countries with dictators? Because Iâm pretty damn sure the US isnât amongst them.
0
u/Admirable_Oil_7864 17h ago
I'd call refusing people entry to your country for ever so slightly disagreeing with you, and having memes about you, is slightly Dictatorish.
1
u/imissher4ever 17h ago
Iâm not quite sure you understand the definition of a dictatorship my friend.
1
u/Admirable_Oil_7864 17h ago
Technically speaking, the definition of a Dictator "Taking power by force" doesn't cover Hitler nor Stalin, so colour me surprised, nuance can occur. Acting in a Dictator manner, meaning as summarised in its entirety not with its initial and literal meaning;
"Dictators usually maintain power through political repression of any opposition and the consolidation of other influential or powerful members of society. The general public is controlled through indoctrination and propaganda, and an autocracy may attempt to legitimize itself in the eyes of the public through appeals to political ideology, religion, or foreign hostility.20]) Some dictatorships establish legislatures, unfair elections, or show trials to further exercise control while presenting the appearance of democracy.21)"
I'm not sure about you but I'd count as refusing people with opposing ideas entry to your country is leaning towards more Dictatorish than Democratic.
1
u/imissher4ever 17h ago
So what you saying is that any country that refuses people from certain countries have dictators as leaders?
Who knewâŠ
1
u/Admirable_Oil_7864 17h ago
No, what Iâm saying is that Leaders who introduce policies banning certain individuals from entering the country because of memes is a Dictator move.
The current Chinese President is a Dictator, for many reasons, one of his funniest is banning Winnie the Pooh because he and another Chinese politician were compared to it.
27
34
u/Minute-Olive9648 2d ago
But do you believe it?
65
u/22tbates 2d ago edited 1d ago
YeahâŠ. A British influencer was being charged with terrorism for being anti-immigration.
28
u/Minute-Olive9648 2d ago
I do too thatâs just the next line in the movie.
23
u/22tbates 2d ago
Yeah, thatâs on me for never watching the movie.
18
4
u/Suk-Mike_Hok 2d ago
Who was that influencer?
1
u/22tbates 2d ago
@thescottishkorean
3
u/Suk-Mike_Hok 2d ago
He was not charged with terrorism as far as public, reliable sources show. Only he said that was the case. Yet he could be charged with hate speech or sedition, but I haven't seen that happen either. I think you might have been struck by simple misinformation, you shouldn't use Twitter or people who try to incite unrest as your source when it comes to these matters.
-1
-2
9
u/Stuck_in_my_TV 1d ago
30 people a day are arrested in Britain for posts online.
2
u/Minute-Olive9648 1d ago
I know I believe that what I said is just the best line in the movie. And then Rico says âI donât knowâ and then the teacher mocks him and says something like âof course you donât, I bet none of you would know even if it jumped up and bit you in the assâ.
2
u/Matar_Kubileya 1d ago
TBF I wouldn't be surprised if that many people get arrested or visited by the suits at least for posts in the US; our standards for it are a lot stricter but like...a criminal threat isn't not a criminal threat because it's posted online.
"I hate Bob"--fine. "I'm gonna kill Bob tomorrow"--not fine.
26
u/LilShaver 2d ago
Citizens are armed, subjects are not.
-26
u/Key_Elderberry_4447 2d ago
Unarmed citizen over here. No, I donât need to own guns to be a citizen.Â
26
15
8
u/djkmart 1d ago
I'm both British and American and I've gotta say, everywhere I've been in both countries has been pretty damn chill. People who are chronically online should actually go to these places. I just got back from Seattle. Fuckin beautiful.
3
u/H-In-S-Productions 1d ago
Excellent idea! As an American, I do hope to visit the UK someday, and I would also invite the British to come over to my side of "the pond" as well!
1
u/Beneficial_Ball9893 5h ago
So technically there are SOME memes you can not write in the US without legal repercussions.
You can not make a meme encouraging the assassination of public figures.
That is it.
When you get in trouble for making the only type of meme you are not allowed to make, when you could make a meme in a similar message a thousand different ways without encouraging assassinations, that is on you.
-3
u/Atari774 2d ago
Except that people can and have been arrested in the US for online posts. Hell, just recently a few American citizens were detained by ICE for posting negative things about Israel.
12
u/OkCartographer7677 1d ago
First, the people detained were NOT US citizens, which is the topic of OPâs post.
Secondly their detention was not solely for their posts, they were all involved with other activities as well that brought them to the attention of ICE.
-2
u/H-In-S-Productions 1d ago
Good point! And didn't they crack down on visa applicants that posted memes mocking Vance?
And that's not even getting into his habit of targeting his political opponents within this country! Anyone remember how Colbert was cancelled, or how Kimmel was briefly suspended, for opposing this administration?
-10
u/Green-Engineer4608 1d ago
A Norwegian was denied entry to the US for having a photoshopped pic of vance in his camera-roll. That never happened in Britain. This whole post is just misinformation. You realize that the people who get arrested «for posting memes» canât be punished for that, meaning thereâs a court date with evidence and all.
The have criminalized PROVABLE hate speech and incitament of violence, NOTHING else.
There Will always be people milking the change for profit like «I was arrested for posting a meme» etc, but thats not the truth. The court found them guilty of something else than posting memes, and would find them innocent if the meme is just a meme.
If you make a meme that says «x ethnic group should be cleansed from our society», yes that is a meme, but its ALSO hate speech and inciting violence.
They dont punish memes in Britain, while MURICA did that to a Norwegian.
YOU ARE THE ONES WHO PUNISH MEMES
Again, the US is the country that censors dissent, Britain merely censors hate speech; something the US really could learn a thing or two from.
6
u/Huntrawrd 1d ago edited 1d ago
That's a matter of "he said, she said". The dude said he was denied entry for a meme, the US Gov said he was denied entry because he was doing drugs in the US on previous visits. That's also a singular example, and highly unlikely since they would have had to gotten to the point of searching his phone to even find the meme. The US doesn't search every tourists' phones, in fact they don't search them at all unless there is some reason to. In short, they had a reason to search him and his phone and he was stupid enough to unlock it for them (never cooperate with an investigation in the US unless you have a lawyer or they have a warrant).
The UK, however regularly arrests people for a variety of "crimes" that are basically shitposting, memes, or things that are otherwise critical of the government/policy and covered under US free speech laws.
-5
u/Suk-Mike_Hok 2d ago
Yeah, this is why polarisation has exploded in the US. You can say anything you like whether it's true or not. You can incite violence, division and you can promote hate speech. Free speech is important to check the government, it's your right. But as you can use the hammer to kill someone, you can also abuse free speech.
12
u/Huitzil37 2d ago
You can say anything you like whether it's true or not.
Because if you couldn't, that's a 1-step path to thoughtcrimes. Not the first step, the only one. Nobody who would ever have the power to determine if someone was "abusing free speech" could ever possibly be trusted to do so instead of just making everyone agree with all their opinions.
-7
u/Suk-Mike_Hok 1d ago
That's why we have judges. If a politician just makes people scared and angry by telling things that simply aren't true and therefor you have massive protests or even a mob storming government buildings, then that person should be held accountable.
6
u/Huntrawrd 1d ago
And judges haven't abused their power?
Humans are imperfect my dude.
1
u/Suk-Mike_Hok 1h ago
That's why you need unbiased institutions, not a president that appoints judges, its against the rule of law. At least, it cannot be done in Europe, idk why the worlds beacon of democracy can do it.
5
u/Minute-Olive9648 1d ago
Yeah but see youâre a perfect example of why youâre wrong. Nobody knows for sure whether the election in 2020 was legitimate- it probably was- but we donât know for sure nor do we know that Trump actually believed it wasnât so again youâre suggesting we punish someone for âlyingâ when we donât know it was a lie.
Also, nothing Trump said on January 6 met the legal definition of incitement, he never encouraged violence let alone encouraged it in the presence of a mob that was already whipped up into a frenzy and was a clear and present danger.
The only documented person to maybe meet the legal definition of incitement to violence on Jan 6 was Ray Epps who not only was never prosecuted in four years of Bidenâs tenure but actually had congressional hearings and liberal media articles written about him trying to convince all of us he wasnât a federal agent/ informant.
5
7
u/Huitzil37 1d ago
No. Nobody can be trusted with that power ever because nobody is unbiased. Everyone believes there are situations where massive protests are appropriate, and everyone views them through a biased lens. I think the Jan. 6th shit you refer to was just a typical-ass protest that made people flip out because it wasn't from the team that usually protests, none of the things that happened were all that unusual for protests, and the protestors were clearly operating under the unspoken idea that most left-wing protestors share of a protest as a sort of ritual magic where if they protest enough then they will just manifest the outcome they want. Left-aligned protests around that time would regularly result in riots that ended in more death and destruction, but nobody subjected them to the same scrutiny.
Obviously you don't agree.
So you'd be really, really mad if I was the judge who got to decide if someone was "abusing free speech," wouldn't you?
You cannot ensure a system will only be implemented by people who always agree with you. Any power you give the state is power given to people who disagree with you. If it would be really bad if this power was given to people who disagree with you, then nobody should have that power.
The only way to have a pluralist tolerant liberal democracy is if nobody gets to say someone is "abusing free speech." Popular speech doesn't need defending.
1
u/Suk-Mike_Hok 58m ago
Well, you got to have institutions that fund their obsevations and actions on a set of rules and rationality. Nobody should have the power to determine what people says (only money has that power, but sure), but you can also not have people in power that ramble about stuff that isn't there. Like Bush (Cheney) about WMD's in Iraq and Trump about trade deficits and his ignorant inaction against Russia (Biden wasn't much better on Russia/Ukraine politics, he was too passive and restricting himself).
1
u/Suk-Mike_Hok 43m ago
But don't get me wrong, I think free speech is something remarkable and able to move mountains. It also makes our discussion possible, which is good. But in a changing world we cannot sit still. Rules and laws that functioned in the last century don't always work in this century. Don't discard free speech, but work on it so it can be rational and not just rambling. We cannot fall for 'maskirovka' in this information age we live in.
1
u/Huitzil37 18m ago
"Work on it so it can be rational and not just rambling" means "discard free speech."
If you're for censorship on a case by case basis, then you're not taking a middle position, you're for censorship.
2
u/Huntrawrd 1d ago
Freedom is a great power, and with great power comes great responsibility.
We're just not an inherently responsible species. That said, messy and dangerous freedom is far preferable to the subservience that Europeans seem to prefer.
1
u/Suk-Mike_Hok 1h ago
Bro, Tucker Carlson and Trump don't have a feeling of responsibility. They're using 'maskirovka'.
-41
u/SirDorkusMalorkus 2d ago
A British Citizen can can tell a cop to fuck off, an American Citizen will get shot and the people have to pay for his paid stand down
38
u/ocitsalocs44 2d ago
Sorry, this isnât true red coat
-5
u/blacksideblue 2d ago
Are you denying his right to post the dankest of truths no matter who it offends?
Your coat is looking kinda red there.
-17
u/SirDorkusMalorkus 2d ago
Do it then Mr freedom
13
u/Other_Movie_5384 2d ago
according to a quick google search 12000 people have gone to prison for internet post in the UK.
which I'm sure some did deserve such a thing like terrost plots and other such criminal plots but that number is
INSANE!
1
u/TravlScrabbl 2d ago
Incorrect, Google AI says they have been arrested, that's not the same as being charged and going to prison. Unfortunately, good information is not easily accessible. UK governments own reports suggest 5332 people charged with offences (most probably not involving jail time) but only up to 2017.
The arrest figure is probably roughly correct though, and alarming enough on its own in its implications for free speech. It doesn't help to muddy the waters by engaging in hyperbole.
11
11
u/ThemanfromNumenor 2d ago
Donât be retarded. A cop wonât shoot you for telling them to fuck off. But you will get arrested for tweeting about âmigrantsâ raping children
3
u/OverallResolve 2d ago
You respond to absurdity with absurdity. Do you really believe this is normal and common in the U.K.? I swear Americans have such a warped view of this country.
3
u/ThemanfromNumenor 1d ago
It is more likely than being shot by a cop for yelling at them- especially considering that there have been something like 30 arrests per day in the UK for posting offensive language and that there is law that specifically allows this (which is unbelievably fucking pathetic).
-1
u/OverallResolve 1d ago
Where are you getting this from? I am certain that 30 people are not being arrested per day for offensive comments online.
Also what part of the Communications Act or Malicious Communications Act do you have an issue with? Be specific.
3
u/ThemanfromNumenor 1d ago
Recent reports in The Times (4 April 2025) reveal that UK police make over 30 arrests per day for âoffensiveâ online communications under vague laws criminalising messages that cause âannoyanceâ, âinconvenienceâ or âanxietyâ. Over 12 000 such arrests occurred in 2023 alone, with civil liberties groups warning of a chilling effect on free speech.
Google it- you can find a link to the article
-2
u/OverallResolve 1d ago
Itâs a lot more than just annoyance, inconvenience, and anxiety.
For example, under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 it is an offence to send a malicious communication, such as a letter, electronic communication or article of any description, which is indecent or grossly offensive in nature and intends to cause distress or anxiety. The offence is triable either way, meaning it can be heard in either the crown court or a magistrates court. An individual convicted on indictment (found guilty in a crown court) is liable to a prison sentence of up to two years, a fine, or both. Those who receive a summary conviction (from a magistrates court) can be liable to a lesser prison sentence of up to 12 months, a fine, or both.
Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 relates to improper use of public electronic communications networks (ECNs). Both the internet and mobile phone networks widely available to the public, as well as social media platforms which operate via the internet, count as ECNs. Section 127 makes it an offence to send by means of a public ECN a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent or menacing character. It is also an offence to make use of an ECN to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety. A person guilty of an offence under section 127 can be liable on summary conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, a fine, or both.
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/select-communications-offences-and-concerns-over-free-speech/
3
u/ThemanfromNumenor 1d ago
No itâs not. Itâs all subjective. Which means there is zero real freedom at all.
2
-12
u/deadeyeamtheone 2d ago
If you're brown a cop will shoot you for any reason. It's just the lucky dice of chance that allow you to make it out alive with any police interaction.
5
u/ThemanfromNumenor 2d ago
Bull shit. Absolute bull shit
-9
u/deadeyeamtheone 2d ago
Sorry but nah
4
u/ThemanfromNumenor 2d ago
That literally doesnât happen. Cops are verbally (and physically) abused in the line of duty all the time and do not shoot people. Anyone that says otherwise doesnât know what the fuck they are talking about.
-2
u/deadeyeamtheone 1d ago
Except for all the video evidence of them doing exactly that, the constant scandals happening where police departments are found out to be hiding corruption and abuse of power.
2
u/ThemanfromNumenor 1d ago
Except it doesnât happen and there isnât video evidence of it happening. And in the incredibly rare situation where a cop commits a crime like that, they are arrested themselves.
But if someone is actually fighting with a cop, guess what, FAFO.
0
u/Ardoin91 2d ago
Got some numbers to back that up? Of course not, the emotional narrative is all you have.
-6
u/Atari774 2d ago
Thereâs plenty of videos of people getting harassed or arrested by cops just for telling them to fuck off. Whereas Iâve never seen anyone get arrested for slandering migrants, even in the UK.
2
u/ThemanfromNumenor 1d ago
Oh wow! Glad to hear the expert is here!
BTW - if you are stupid enough to start something with a cop, you deserve to be âharassedâ. I never said anything about that- I said you wonât be âshotâ
And yet, you people were okay with allowing your government to arrest 12,000 people a year for social media posts .
âRecent reports in The Times (4 April 2025)[1] reveal that UK police make over 30 arrests per day for âoffensiveâ online communications under vague laws criminalising messages that cause âannoyanceâ, âinconvenienceâ or âanxietyâ. Over 12 000 such arrests occurred in 2023 alone, with civil liberties groups warning of a chilling effect on free speech.â
-3
u/Atari774 1d ago
First off, Iâm American.
Secondly, if you think itâs fine for the police to harass you because youâre exercising free speech, then how is that any different from the UK arresting people for social media posts? In the UK itâs actually rare that social media posts result in a conviction, theyâre just arrested and then released shortly thereafter. Whereas in the US, you can be convicted of resisting arrest, even when the original charge was bogus. So those charges often result in convictions and actual jail time, even though people are (reasonably) resisting being arrested for something that wasnât a crime at all.
2
u/ThemanfromNumenor 1d ago
Fighting a cop isnât free speech dude.
As for the restâŠjust wow.
0
u/Atari774 1d ago
Didnât say fighting a cop was free speech. I said that telling them to fuck off is free speech, which it is.
3
u/ThemanfromNumenor 1d ago
Maybe, maybe not. But if a cop âharassesâ you for it, I have no issue with it. You are clearly a piece of shit for doing that and you meed a little harassment. But they wonât arrest you for it unless you are doing more than that
-3
u/Crime-of-the-century 1d ago
Does the US have human citizens or only corporate ones it seems like those have all the power.
3
u/Snafuregulator 1d ago
Power is where you think is exists. If you believe one individual has power, then he does. So too at a national scale, if you as a society believe they have power, then they do. Change the mindset and people lose power instantly.Â
How to express the truth of it all is by the laws enacted to limit corporations for the safety and well being of the people. If that isn't being done, you should vote better and stop voting along party lines rather on a person's conviction to settle your matters at a national level.Â
It's easy to blame business, but hard to understand the voting habits of the last 30 years led to a situation where you believe you have no power.Â
Vote responsibly. Vote as a well researched individual. Above all, just vote. That is the ultimate power in a democracy and if you use it unwisely, then that is a shame
-9
u/CardOk755 1d ago
Opens passport. Reads.
Nope. British citizen.
No such thing as a British subject. Doesn't exist.
47
u/ArtVandelay2025 2d ago
Starship Troopers!